[Bamaben]

It's playing the odds, it's something I chose to take my chances with and wished I hadn't. since then I prefer to increase my chances of success by removing as many statistically likely failure points and being prepared for new ones . Consider that someone's else's good luck doesn't increases your chances for good luck. I get the cost factor playing a part but to me I rather pay in advance to fix failure parts before they fail while in my garage when convenient and not be sabotaged on a trip for something that statistically was bound to fail any minute.

[DS3IAM]

Originally Posted by porsche959

103k miles on a 2006 325i 6mt (owned the car for about 3 months).

not sure when the water pump was replaced but its working fine for now. have new oil and tires on the car.

thinking about taking a trip from nyc to chicago, then back to nyc - roughly 2k miles.

So far the most miles in a day has been ~300miles (roundtrip from nyc to philly).

is this a bad idea?

Sounds like you are good to go. If you are traveling within the next couple of weeks I would recommend snow tires in lieu of all season tires just in case you get hit some snow.

My GF has a 2007 E90 328xi has 194K miles. She drive every other week from Pittsburgh to NJ (about 800 mile trip round trip). She never had any issues over the last five years. We finally changed her water pump around 170K (Yes it was the original pump) and she drives on dedicated snow tires too. Our goal is to reach 300K on the car. We should hit it around 3.5 years from now.

Enjoy the drive!

[vilord]

My 2007 328xi has 161,000 miles on it, still on the original water pump.

Except for the recent accident damage, I wouldn't hesitate to drive it to California and back (though I'd bring a spare tire, and shove a jack and lug wrench and a few other misc tools under the trunk floor).

For me at least, this car has been just as reliable as the Celica it replaced, and more reliable than any of the other half-dozen cars before that (Subaru Legacy, Nissan Frontier, Toyota Matrix, K1500, etc)

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Bamaben

It's playing the odds, it's something I chose to take my chances with and wished I hadn't. since then I prefer to increase my chances of success by removing as many statistically likely failure points and being prepared for new ones . Consider that someone's else's good luck doesn't increases your chances for good luck. I get the cost factor playing a part but to me I rather pay in advance to fix failure parts before they fail while in my garage when convenient and not be sabotaged on a trip for something that statistically was bound to fail any minute.

The E90 Post 100,000 mile faiure rate is not derived from any statistical analysis; it's just internet conjecture.

[Bamaben]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The E90 Post 100,000 mile faiure rate is not derived from any statistical analysis; it's just internet conjecture.

It's just my observation and feeling that more fail before 100k than fail after 100k

[CTinline-six]

Originally Posted by Bamaben

It's just my observation and feeling that more fail before 100k than fail after 100k

I think heat cycles and driving style over time are bigger factors than mileage.

[hassmaschine]

Originally Posted by Bamaben

It's just my observation and feeling that more fail before 100k than fail after 100k

you're not making the significant distinction between the N54 and the N52 though. Plastic housing, higher thermal demands vs aluminum housing. The N52 pumps last longer.

Also, they don't really fail suddenly - there are error codes, but they aren't displayed on the dash (unless the DME is modified to do so).

[Bamaben]

Originally Posted by CTinline-six

I think heat cycles and driving style over time are bigger factors than mileage.

Regardless they won't last forever so it's personal preference to take the chances running on old pumps. No one is glad there pump failed while driving.

[OTO335i]

Originally Posted by Bamaben

Regardless they won't last forever so it's personal preference to take the chances running on old pumps. No one is glad there pump failed while driving.

My N54 definitely won't last forever and it's approaching 180,000Km's. Since I'm running an old engine should I replace it? I can just imagine the chances I'm taking on the daily taking my car into work on an old motor....

[Bamaben]

Originally Posted by OTO335i

My N54 definitely won't last forever and it's approaching 180,000Km's. Since I'm running an old engine should I replace it? I can just imagine the chances I'm taking on the daily taking my car into work on an old motor....

I've said yes but if you like running on borrowed time then no.

[nsjames]

138K miles on my factory water pump.


I guess it's gong to leave me stranded and I'll die soon.

[OTO335i]

Originally Posted by Bamaben

I've said yes but if you like running on borrowed time then no.

This doesn't make sense anymore. OP should just take his damn car and if it breaks down it breaks down, if it doesn't then it doesn't. Chances are nothing will happen... No point of trying to stress people with things that aren't broken.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Bamaben

It's just my observation and feeling that more fail before 100k than fail after 100k

My car is almost like a science experiment. For the past 11 years I have driven it extremely identical year over year. I take the same 80 mile route to work and even fill up at the same gas station and same gas pump and the same 80 mile reverse trip home. My original pump lasted 149,251 miles. The replacement pump (updated part number) is past 210,000 with no codes yet to show. If the pumps stastically all fail at nearly the same mileage as you believe, then it would not be possible for service life of the pump to fail with such deviation in mileage as I have observed and as others have reported in this thread. The problem with such discussion as you bring to this thread just exacerbates a myth while the OP is questioning whether he should drive his car on medium length trip. It is completely ridiculous to believe that a car has a higher probability of failure while on a road trip and is farther away from its home parking space than when it is being driven locally to work. Worse is believing it will breakdown based on an stastically unproven event such as a 100,000 mile water pump failure.

[Bamaben]

I've never stated op has higher probability of wp failure because of distance of trip, rather, higher probably of failure due to age of wp. However, the consequences of failed wp on 2000 mile trip if it failed while a great distance from home would be greater than failing in his neighborhood in terms of cost and convenience. It's like I tell people whom I teach to ride motorcycles: riding a bike doesn't necessarily increase your chance of someone else hitting you but the consequences are higher you'll be hurt on bike than you would in a car. It's all about risk. I didn't change my wp when my tstat failed at 56k because I read about them lasting over 100k and justified not spending the money on a pump then when everyone else said I was crazy not to replace the pump at that mileage since I was already there. I didn't and 6k later the wp failed on interstate during returning from a 4 hour trip , luckily on the way back only 3 miles from my exit so I didn't incur towing, etc. could have failed 2 hours away and that would have sucked.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by Bamaben

I've never stated op has higher probability of wp failure because of distance of trip, rather, higher probably of failure due to age of wp. However, the consequences of failed wp on 2000 mile trip if it failed while a great distance from home would be greater than failing in his neighborhood in terms of cost and convenience. It's like I tell people whom I teach to ride motorcycles: riding a bike doesn't necessarily increase your chance of someone else hitting you but the consequences are higher you'll be hurt on bike than you would in a car. It's all about risk. I didn't change my wp when my tstat failed at 56k because I read about them lasting over 100k and justified not spending the money on a pump then when everyone else said I was crazy not to replace the pump at that mileage since I was already there. I didn't and 6k later the wp failed on interstate during returning from a 4 hour trip , luckily on the way back only 3 miles from my exit so I didn't incur towing, etc. could have failed 2 hours away and that would have sucked.

I've been trying to kind of make this point, so based on your story, I'll go for it one more time. Every day I drive to my office 80 miles from my home it is 2 hours away in a far off scary metropolitian area known as "Northern Virginia". I'm not too uptight about it because there is cell service (unlike that which is not available out where I live for 1/2 hour into my trip), towing companies, and God forbid, BMW repair facilities such as BMW of Fairfax and BMW of Sterling, let alone several indie shops to choose from. The point most of us are trying to make is the OP has risk of breakdown ANY time he drives his car regardless of where he goes and how old or new his vehicle is. Additionally most of us with N52 and over 100,000 miles on the vehicle have found the E90 to be a vechile of average to high reliability, no different than most other brands of automobile.

There is no point to own a car if you have such fear it will fail you more than walking distance from home. At 100,000 miles, if the OP feels his E90 is unreliable he should sell it, or perhaps fly; statistically it would be much safer and far less risk.

[Bamaben]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I've been trying to kind of make this point, so based on your story, I'll go for it one more time. Every day I drive to my office 80 miles from my home it is 2 hours away in a far off scary metropolitian area known as "Northern Virginia". I'm not too uptight about it because there is cell service (unlike that which is not available out where I live for 1/2 hour into my trip), towing companies, and God forbid, BMW repair facilities such as BMW of Fairfax and BMW of Sterling, let alone several indie shops to choose from. The point most of us are trying to make is the OP has risk of breakdown ANY time he drives his car regardless of where he goes and how old or new his vehicle is. Additionally most of us with N52 and over 100,000 miles on the vehicle have found the E90 to be a vechile of average to high reliability, no different than most other brands of automobile.

There is no point to own a car if you have such fear it will fail you more than walking distance from home. At 100,000 miles, if the OP feels his E90 is unreliable he should sell it, or perhaps fly; statistically it would be much safer and far less risk.

Seems a little drastic for OP to sell his car rather than keep it and just replace the pump, which in turn greatly reduces his risk of being stranded due to wp failure. Sure, other parts could fail but most likely not the pump so that removes one failure point. It's still cheaper to prevent a failed part than deal with it on the road. I'm the type to reduce risk by taking necessary steps. It's just insurance: it's a waste until you need it then you're glad you got it.

[pjr710]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

LOL. Did you buy the car to look at it, or drive it? I drive my car more than that distance every month and it has over 3 times the mileage yours has. If you are really that concerned, just get the car scanned with a BMW scan tool and see if any codes are sitting in any of the control units

for shizzle

[ryan stewart]

Originally Posted by OTO335i

Again this can happen at anytime with any make or model car... You were just unfortunately unlucky at that moment. People get stranded all the time, you can't control when a part will fail. Just because most fail at 100K doesn't mean his will fail now. Like Efthreeoh said, his lasted 210K miles.

Most people that own these cars should technically have roadside assistance anyways because a single flat can leave you stranded.. This has happened to me.

Youre just saying words, are you trying to pad a high school essay to get your word count up? Nobody here is saying BMWs are unreliable, so you can stop with the "Again this can happen at anytime with any make or model car..." id do the same thing with a toyota, Chevy, whatever.

Now, for the replacing parts, here it is: Parts have probabilities of failures that change as they age, especially mechanical parts. When they reach a probability I deem worth it to change, I change it. A few hundred bucks and a few hours of my time is totally worth knowing there is now almost no risk of that part failing on me.

As for the other statement that "our cars have lots of electronics that can fail." I, as an intelligent adult, can also evaluate the risk and determine which ones are likely to fail or likely to create a considerable problem WHEN They fail. If a speaker or my amp goes out in the middle of a road trip, no biggie. If the water pump fails, that could literally ruin the trip if I was just going someplace for the weekend and got stranded in a place where I cant get the car fixed quickly.

Speaking of the amp, I started hearing the fan that cools the amp in the trunk. $20 later I have a new fan. Not because my car would be sidelined if that fan failed, but because that fan failing might ruin a $700 amp...

Its amazing what adults can do if they employ some critical thought.

[ryan stewart]

Originally Posted by Bamaben

Seems a little drastic for OP to sell his car rather than keep it and just replace the pump, which in turn greatly reduces his risk of being stranded due to wp failure. Sure, other parts could fail but most likely not the pump so that removes one failure point. It's still cheaper to prevent a failed part than deal with it on the road. I'm the type to reduce risk by taking necessary steps. It's just insurance: it's a waste until you need it then you're glad you got it.

I think people like these guys are the ones who are leading to the new narrative that BMWs arent reliable. Ive been exposed to the brand since 1992 (and owned models as old as 1985) and they have all been incredibly reliable. But one big reason is, back in the day when everyone thought BMWs were bulletproof, BMW had prescribed maintenance. That is probably why people thought they were expensive to maintain though, since you had SCHEDULED maintenance instead of "fix when broken."

You used to NEVER see one broken down on the side of the road. But with BMW pushing more leases, not caring about long term reliability concerns and, just my opinon, more and more people leveraging themselves into a car they cant PROPERLY afford and running them poorly maintained.

Maintain your car based on probabilities and all of the sudden BMWs become bulletproof again. In 2003 I did a 1600 mile road trip in a 1985 3 series with an S50 in it, including time in triple digits, and even with a track day, without even a hiccup thanks to fixing what ISNT broken but is more likely to break.

[ryan stewart]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

The E90 Post 100,000 mile faiure rate is not derived from any statistical analysis; it's just internet conjecture.

Or somewhere in between, again if you can use critical thought. Googling "E90 water pump failure" you can find dozens of threads. In those threads people tend to report two important things, age of car and how many miles it has on it. Gather up those data points and you have what could be called a crude statistical analysts. Of course there are going to be outliers, but a trend is easy to spot.

When I started my refresh project after realizing it HATE the FXX BMWs and dont know what to replace this with (RWD wagons dont exist in the US anymore) I literally googled both "E90 points of failure" and "N52k points of failure" and looked at probably a hundred posts of people reporting their real-world instances. I would apply context to them of course (not living in the north with salted roads, etc).

[OTO335i]

Originally Posted by Bamaben

Seems a little drastic for OP to sell his car rather than keep it and just replace the pump, which in turn greatly reduces his risk of being stranded due to wp failure. Sure, other parts could fail but most likely not the pump so that removes one failure point. It's still cheaper to prevent a failed part than deal with it on the road. I'm the type to reduce risk by taking necessary steps. It's just insurance: it's a waste until you need it then you're glad you got it.

I still think you don't understand. It's not drastic, If he's so scared that his car will break down then why would he keep such a vehicle? His WP isn't failing nor is it broken. He has greater chances of getting a flat tire than the WP failing on this road trip so his risks are just as high even he changes his good pump because a flat will leave him stranded.

Everyone should have some savings put away for any vehicle they own for unexpected break downs. Are you saying that you stock fuel pumps, injectors, spark plugs, coils, idler pulleys, tensioners, serpentine belt, turbos, wastegate actuators? These are all things that can fail, so for insurance you should change them all before they fail and send me your good working parts.

[ryan stewart]

Originally Posted by OTO335i

I still think you don't understand. It's not drastic, If he's so scared that his car will break down then why would he keep such a vehicle? His WP isn't failing nor is it broken. He has greater chances of getting a flat tire than the WP failing on this road trip so his risks are just as high even he changes his good pump because a flat will leave him stranded.

I have never, ever, been stranded by a flat tire. Literally never in 22 years of driving. I dont personally know anyone who has been stranded by a flat tire, ever. There are about a dozen, incredibly cheap, mitigation steps you can take to reduce the impact of a flat tire. Also the odds of finding a replacement tire (although the vast majority of flats can just be patched by any tire store, even at wal-mart) in BFE are CONSIDERABLY higher than a BMW water pump.

Youre point isnt terrible, its not good but its not terrible; your argument is.